Evolution, just a big hoax?
- Thread starter DoctorH
- Start date
Have to agree with you.DoctorH said:
Funny thing is that people believed this theory yet this world is fighting to save some animals that are about to be extincted. I don't believe we'll see the comeback of dodo in billions of years...
barnettgs said:Have to agree with you.
Funny thing is that people believed this theory yet this world is fighting to save some animals that are about to be extincted. I don't believe we'll see the comeback of dodo in billions of years...
Well the Dodo was forced into extinction by humankind, not gradually dying out like the dinosaurs.
In my heart, and my head, evolution always made more sense to me.
And for all the people that say "well that makes life meaningless" no, it doesn't - YOU personally make life your own and make what it means to you, not by the rules of an all seeing all knowing God.
Rich
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,345
barnettgs said:Have to agree with you.
Funny thing is that people believed this theory yet this world is fighting to save some animals that are about to be extincted. I don't believe we'll see the comeback of dodo in billions of years...
what a what a what with what now,
..........WTF what what a what a what now ? lol*laughs out loud with the oddness of the comment*, ummmm why has so called 'beleaving' in evolution, have anything to do with trying to save a species ? in the manner you have placed it in your comment.................yes its good to save species...............how does that in any way effect ones understanding of evolution ?
The dodo thing just makes no sense, no it wont come back............er so........er ..........er ? How does that effect my understanding of evolution ?
Sorry for my eer random attitude just people making completely high/drugged up comments about sheer randomness is really starting to get me
we should have a new forum rule 'Do not post unless you make sense, have thought through the intelligence of posting something, and have good knowledge of said subject'If you know little of a subject please follow what should be another new rule 'If you dont understand something, ask, do not post random rubbish'
Eg: 'Whats evolution and how does it work' , Me and many others here will be glad to explain it
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,345
Nitefly said:Why?
*devils advocate*
I don't expect you to answer, I was just being pedant. The thread has melted my brain
haha nice 1
, well is it -always- good to maintain species diversity ? how do we know a speicies wouldnt of died out anyways if there were no humans ? and so on and so on and so on 
The best way to disprove intelligent design is the inherent flaws in the design of the human body. I mean cmon, would you really say to yourself "Ah, i think we will put the scrotum there, and make it look like THAT . . . ". And then make the ELBOWS out of the same skin . . . .
In my experience nearly all arguments against evolution are completely misunderstandings of it.
I don't think any valid scientific theories can include a god. If you assume a god exists then one of two things must be true:
either
1) God defined the laws of the universe and set the whole thing in motion (big bang or whatever) but then has no further input.
2) God not only created the universe but also keeps changing things along the way (eg. Intelligent design).
If 1 is true, god's existance is completely irrelevent to scientific theories, as it doesn't make a difference either way.
If 2 is true, science would be pointless as god could just be doing anything. Scientific method would have no predictive value since god might just decide to change the rules every now and then. It would appear this isn't the case as we have never observed anything changing in such a manner. Of course god could just be altering our memories of it again making the whole thing pointless.
I don't think any valid scientific theories can include a god. If you assume a god exists then one of two things must be true:
either
1) God defined the laws of the universe and set the whole thing in motion (big bang or whatever) but then has no further input.
2) God not only created the universe but also keeps changing things along the way (eg. Intelligent design).
If 1 is true, god's existance is completely irrelevent to scientific theories, as it doesn't make a difference either way.
If 2 is true, science would be pointless as god could just be doing anything. Scientific method would have no predictive value since god might just decide to change the rules every now and then. It would appear this isn't the case as we have never observed anything changing in such a manner. Of course god could just be altering our memories of it again making the whole thing pointless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Well, the usual argument is that such a deity transcends the limitations of time, space and causality as we see them.Psyk said:
Bit of a cop out though if you ask me
Psyk said:
On the other side though why is the thought of a god "just existing" often seen as less plausible than the universe "just existing"? I don't mean some old geezer with a beard and a penchant for setting shrubbery on fire either.
It just puzzles me how some people are perfectly happy accepting the idea that the universe suddenly appeared out of, and began to expand into nothingness, but not the fact that there might be some sort of guiding force behind the whole thing as both beliefs are based on faith and are untestable.
To me the question "where was god before he created the universe?" makes as much sense as asking "what was there before the universe?"
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Certainly. The problem is, though, that it doesn't agree with the Bible in a literal sense, and as such, Christian fundamentalists don't like it.Klo said:Has anybody considered that God (intelligent design) might have created evolution?
I don't believe in intelligent design, I'm evolution all the way, but its just a thought
You're absolutely right, though, in that Christianity (as long as its account of things is not taken literally) and evolution are not mutually exclusive; evolution could simply be the mechanism by which God created what we see today
And THAT is the reason that religion blows.Psyk said:
They expect us to take on faith that their big invisible magic beardy fella has always existed, yet if you suggest that there's a finite amount of "stuff"* in the entirety of space that keeps expanding and contracting into the universe (or universes/multiverse) they say that's crazy talk.
You can't beat them with reason, as they don't need a reasonable argument to influence them.
*non-technical term for "everything" there...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Well the problem is that time, space, and causality have no meaning outside the universe. As such, there is no 'before the universe existed'. You could also argue on those grounds that the universe could not have been 'caused' because causation isn't possible without some kind of instigator to do the causing beforehand.loopstah said:
Inquisitor said:
Exactly, there could be anything beyond, before, or after the universe and we will never know, or be able to prove, disprove or find out about it as we exist within the universe. So it's just as feasible that something exists 'outside' that is responsible for everything that occurs within this universe as it is that there is nothing 'outside', or multiple universes 'outside', or a shell universe or whatever else people might imagine or even that there is no 'outside'.
As far as we are concerned there is no 'before the universe existed' but that doesn't mean that there wasn't anything before, only that there wasn't anything from our frame of reference, i.e. within the universe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,345
barnettgs said:Had a bad day?
You want to have a new forum rule so you don't have to listen anything from all sides, your royal highness?
Not at all mate, had a great day, and apologies for seemingly offending you, but I also said sorry for getting a little pushy in the post I made, its not you im annoyed at, im getting abit irate about people writing totally random and clearly obvious rubbish without thinking about things. I dont mean that to sound condescending, but yeah again, saying that just makes me go
As a straight question - whats the funny thing about people trying to save species? LOADS of people from all walks of life try to save species weather they 'beleive' in evolution or not, its just a random comment to me picked out of thin air and im trying to get my head around what logic was used/what you ment
Er no probably not, unless we genetically engineer one, the idea of genetics backing up the whole idea of evolution...........genetics being a real and useable tool.........of course unless all the worlds genetic acheivments and 100's of labs around the world I just imagined ?
Anyways back on question - exactly how will seeing a dodo change your mind about evolution ? In the sense said, dodo's have sfa to do with the concept of evolution
End of the day I absolutely love having in depth conversations and trying to figure out the world around you, debating about a subject is also much fun, hence these forums, and the amount of serious talks that go on here, well exchange of ideas anyways
, but often someone says something akin to sayin the skys neon green, of course colour is subjective ! but a debate is only enjoyable when both partys make valid points, offer constructive critasism and dont say blatently silly things, or if one must say something thats abit off the wall, back the statement up with good sound reasoning And saying this FAO Sciencey Sorts, who was it that said lets make an OCUK guide to evolution ? We could but it would be 1000's pages long and no1 would read it as it was so long, think its worth doing?
Last edited: